So, we just add more nonsense to the nonsense?
Neither is particularly appealing to me.
Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 2x12 - "Through the Valley of Shadows"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Neither is particularly appealing to me.
How do we know that in the 23rd Century "Time Crystals" aren't based on some part of the existing 21st century theories?
Just because today we don't know how it could be possible, doesn't mean that our knowledge couldn't be the start of something similar in 200 years.
I'm not saying it's definitely going to be so, but for me it's as plausible as any other Trek Technobabble at this point.
Hell, look at all the things that have come to pass just seen in TOS 54 years ago.
Why would anybody want to limit their imagination when watching ANY Sci-Fi show?
Just because today we don't know how it could be possible, doesn't mean that our knowledge couldn't be the start of something similar in 200 years.
I'm not saying it's definitely going to be so, but for me it's as plausible as any other Trek Technobabble at this point.
Hell, look at all the things that have come to pass just seen in TOS 54 years ago.
Why would anybody want to limit their imagination when watching ANY Sci-Fi show?
If you want a nonsense thing, then give it a nonsense name. If one wants to use real scientific terms then what is depicted on screen should be at least within touching distance of the real science.
This. There are times when I feel like imaginations are being limited in Star Trek, even more so than before.How do we know that in the 23rd Century "Time Crystals" aren't based on some part of the existing 21st century theories?
Just because today we don't know how it could be possible, doesn't mean that our knowledge couldn't be the start of something similar in 200 years.
I'm not saying it's definitely going to be so, but for me it's as plausible as any other Trek Technobabble at this point.
Hell, look at all the things that have come to pass just seen in TOS 54 years ago.
Why would anybody want to limit their imagination when watching ANY Sci-Fi show?
"Made up Nonsense" - otherwise known as fantasy.
Why?
Again I ask, why limit ones imagination to only what we know today, when watching a show about the future?
Again,this ship went to warp a long time ago with Star Trek.
Trek has never been very concerned with being in touching distance of any real science.
In terms of geography, jagged snow-capped peaks with underlying volcanic activity seems right in line with what we see in "Rightful Heir" (TNG)...
In terms of architecture, I didn't get the impression that this itself was supposed to exist in some physically unchanged state outside of time. On the contrary, time seems to be selectively condensed in certain areas within its walls, as evidenced by the instant orchard and Tenavik's rapid aging. That coupled with the topography being in geologic flux as well could really wreak havoc in terms of structural stability, requiring constant remodeling and additions as lava flows engulf their facades and force retreat to higher ground. (Hey, if they can grow trees that fast, they certainly wouldn't lack for building materials!)
Besides, we know that Boreth doesn't remain as strictly closed to all outsiders in the next century, because otherwise Worf wouldn't be allowed to make his pilgrimage there. For all we know, the order of monks he visited wasn't the same one as the Timekeepers seen here at all. Just because they've been the only game in town up to now, there's no reason they must still be later on. In fact, even in the present, by her comments about the monastery's dual purposes L'Rell seems to draw a distinction between the ordinary Followers of Kahless and the Timekeepers. Maybe some of the former get fed up with all the timey-wimey and decide to go build their own settlement further up the mountainside, or upon a neighboring slope?
(That is to say, I see no obstacle to seeing it that way, if we like.)
I'm not particularly interested in that angle, personally (although I can roll with it if things go in that direction). What I do find an intriguing idea though, as a couple other people have suggested, is that Control's mastery of nanotech might stem from information gathered about the Borg by Starfleet through the events depicted in First Contact and "Regeneration" (ENT). Section 31 was already around back then, per "Affliction"/"Divergence" (ENT).
-MMoM
Last edited:
When I drink Folger's Crystals Instant Coffee I know my future will be bursting with energy!
Perhaps there's something to these Time Crystals after all...
Perhaps there's something to these Time Crystals after all...
I would say that Star Trek through the years, has mostly tried to remain "plausible" to the science of the day.
But I like that the writers go out on a limb occasionally and create things beyond my understanding.
That is what I believe Sci-Fi should always do to peek my interest.
But I like that the writers go out on a limb occasionally and create things beyond my understanding.
That is what I believe Sci-Fi should always do to peek my interest.
Nah, everything else is fast as £u©©.
Monasteries hold deep hidden mystique, don't they? They can secretly harbour a TARDIS, fake Yeti, more fake Yeti, a high-tech listening post, and prophetic stones...
I must visit one sometime!
I must visit one sometime!
Right. I mean, it's not like TOS consulted with the RAND corporation or something. Uh-oh, wait, the Wayback Machine is jangling: What, Wayback? They did consult with RAND? Sure it wasn't Rand, as in Yeoman Janice and her Beehive Bonnet? No? Ok, it's coming through my earpiece and hooded viewer now: look, it's The Scientific American with a subtitle: "Fifty years after the original series premiere, it's still the gold standard of scientific accuracy, even with the occasional blunder."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-sticklers-who-kept-star-trek-in-line/
I believe GR consulted by post with Asimov too.
But no, those 60s writer producers didn't try to be somewhat scientifically accurate while at the same time making high quality tv.
That sounds really nice but how long did that continue?
Heck, ST ID had a blood based therapy which is based in real science and is derided as "magic blood."
Sorry, Star Trek has sailed far from the 60s with science advisors and the like.
Heck, ST ID had a blood based therapy which is based in real science and is derided as "magic blood."
Sorry, Star Trek has sailed far from the 60s with science advisors and the like.
It may have been the 'gold standard' in the sixties, but I've watched scifi shows since then that adhere to actual science much better than that or any Trek Series. They just don't have the overarching cultural cache that Trek has.
Last edited:
And Star Trek has endured despite not being scientifically accurate.
As are all consultants.
My point is they were tryin', since someone asserted "Trek has never been very concerned with being in touching distance of any real science." This is not true. These were 1960s war vets and writers attempting to do science fiction. Props to them.
I agree with the criticism of magic blood, though there might be science in there, b/c of Khan's genetics. "Red matter" rubs me the wrong way jsut b/c it sounds goofy to my ears; though I know there is dark matter in real life. So it goes.
I agree with the criticism of magic blood, though there might be science in there, b/c of Khan's genetics. "Red matter" rubs me the wrong way jsut b/c it sounds goofy to my ears; though I know there is dark matter in real life. So it goes.
I add butter and coconut oil for an extra boost. Maybe they work with Time Crystals too, who knows?
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Sticky
- Poll
